Daphne G.

Corpuz December 11, 2019

2019 – 00750 Prof. Cathlyne Joy Alvarez-Abarejo

FINAL PROJECT

Thought Experiment: Is it truly a development?

I. Thought Experiment Narrative

You are the president of a democratic country. The country has been regarded as a
developing country, where the majority of the people are in the middle class or the working
people. As its president, you envision that during your regime, problems such as traffic
congestion, rapid population growth, and pollution in its capital will be given a life-time
solution. These problems do not only impede the economic growth of the country but also imply
danger to people’s health, especially the working class.

Given this situation at hand, you consulted a famous analyst, a fellow countryman who
just came back to your country after working abroad for years. He worked in other countries and
performed an excellent job – through his advice, they were able to flourish economically and rise
as first-world countries from being third-world. After meeting with him, you knew that the only
immediate way to solve this problem is to construct another city that will become another
business district.

After hearing his advice, you talked to other politicians and elites. Given the situation,
they are in favor of this new project since it will ensure growth and development. They are also
willing to shoulder half of the proposed budget given by the analyst. However, during the
meeting, one of them said that the proposed location of the new business district is the place
where the marginalized live, and that they have to be relocated to another place as soon as
possible.

You knew that these people are the tribe who cultivated the land and maintained its peace
and order, as well as its state of being a green land. Because of different calamities, all the other
tribes have gone and died – the reason why these people are very particular in defending their
lands since they are the only ones who carry the identity of the only indigenous people left in the
country. Thus, given that they will be moved to a different place with a different set of people
and a different kind of environment, they will be forced to adjust and leave their identity behind.
Will you push through the proposed solution to growth and development? Or will you choose to
let the marginalized tribe continue living their culture and identity?

II. Exploration of the Two Sides of the Coin

A. Push through the project: Pushing through the project will mean lots of
opportunities to the middle and upper class of the society. The opportunities given to them will
be of great help to the issue of poverty and slow economic progress in the country. Adding a new
business district means making more money that will significantly contribute to the economy. It
will also lessen the traffic congestion in the country since the working class will have another
option to choose the location of their workplace, and it will also aid in controlling the dense
population in the capital – thus, giving a solution to the problem of pollution.

The theory that can be used to defend this position is John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism. In
this theory, the majority’s happiness is maximized since it will benefit the two social classes in
the country. Relocating the marginalized tribe does not mean that they are being discriminated;
the president only finds more weight of advantages for the country if the project is pushed
through.

Additionally, ethical egoism also suggests that the desire of the agent, which is, in this
case, the president, should be put forward. Based on the analyst’s suggestion, his desire for the
country to be regarded as the first-world will be met; thus, it is not selfish for him to approve this
decision. It will not only make him be labeled as a “good” president, but the decision allows
economic growth and wealth to flourish in the country.

B. Do not push through the project: No matter how good the effects of the project
will be, there will also be people who will suffer. They are deprived of their rights as being the
only indigenous people. Although they are only a few people, the president should also take
them into consideration, as they also contributed to the country’s identity and culture, as well as
in taking care of their lands. Without them, the land, the location of the proposed project, will be
polluted and destroyed as well.
 The defense of this side can be anchored to Kantian ethics. His point-of-view about
morality says that the rationality of our principles, and not the consequences of our actions, is the
one that defines our morality. The desire of the president to make the country as first-world will
not justify his action of relocating the indigenous people since it is irrational to deprive them of
their rights. Moreover, the indigenous people, in this context, are only used as means for the
country to progress, since they will be moved out of their own lands. They are not treated as the
ends themselves because of the inconsideration the president has towards them. Provided that
they have given the land the appropriate care and cultivation, they also have the right to remain
in the area.

III. Synthesis and Answer

The given thought experiment gives us the dilemma to choose for the majority's good, or
the minority’s good. It calls for our view regarding morality and how to respond to such a
situation. Although the former side presents a heavyweight of advantages for the country, these
advantages do not outweigh the value of the indigenous people in the country.

Answering the thought experiment myself, I am in favor of not pushing through the
project since it is unjustifiable for the side of the indigenous people. If choosing progress means
losing my identity, I will not choose that action. Kant’s theory also suggests that in making
decisions, we can use people, while also seeing their value. However, in the given situation, the
president will disregard the tribe’s value for identity and culture when he chooses development.
Additionally, as a president, his duty is to prioritize people’s development, the development of
all. Using Kant’s universalizability, if all presidents were to take the action of relocating the
indigenous people, then the country will eventually choose to remove their identity in exchange
for development.

References:

“Morality and the Good Life”. 243-273. Print.

Solomon, Ra. “New Clark City: Development for Everyone?” Ateneo Economics Association, 7

Aug. 2019, http://admuaea.org/2019/08/07/new-clark-city-development-for-everyone/.